The Problem in Chelsea 4-2-3-1 Formation

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

So Ramires and Romeu would be awful for that position and should not play there, but Lampard played well last season and for the past decade, been man of the match for 2 England games so SHOULD play there, even though he does not have the discipline to play the role. I am not slagging off Frank because he is one of our best ever players. But there is no getting away from the fact that he is not suitable for the role. Personally i think Romeu and Ramires would be better suited to the role. With 2 proper holding midfielders i see no reason why we cannot play a fluid 3 ahead of them.

I see many opinions of what the role should be, it seems that the only player to fit the profile is Pirlo which is silly, to my mid the club and RDM clearly wanted to play with 3 attacking midfielders which is why we have spent so much money buying them, behind them we need players to make the play tick, move the ball around and link up to the 3 attacking mids. The article at the start of this thread explains perfectly what is gong wrong.

RDM has PLENTY of options. Tons of them, but we have not seen any attempt to try anything other than switching to 4-3-3 on Saturday which worked much better in the end. The problem is (and it is something Chelsea do frustratingly often) is putting square pegs in round holes. We have so many attacking midfield options there is NO reason to play a left back or a central midfielder in those roles. To my mind there are 2 basic options, stick with the formation and take Lampard out the midfeild 2, or switch to a 4-3-3 to accomodate him.

The article at the beginning of this thread was terrible because it makes the same basic mistake in thinking that the double pivot is two defensive midfielders. It just isn't. Many teams play the 4-2-3-1 and the roles are almost always the same. One defensive midfielder, and one deep-lying playmaker. You can't play with two defensive midfielders because there's no bridge from the defence to the attack. Instead of freeing up the attackers to do more, what it actually does is require the attacking players to come further back up the pitch to receive the ball. So you have a team that has static movement and very limited creativity Also, I found the criticisms of Lampard kind of ridiculous. The biggest pproblem at Chelsea is that Lampard makes too many runs and that opens us up too much space? Chelsea have conceded 2 goals in the 3 games Lampard has started and neither of them were remotely caused by Lampard (One, brilliant header Cahill could have done better, one horrible error by Cech)? Why is something that has cost us zero goals this year suddenly the biggest problem with the team? (The criticism of him not being an ideal deep-lying midfielder is legitimate.) Also, the article is wrong about Lampard's positioning. It's not a debate. It's just factually wrong because we actual have Lampard's positioning data available. Look at Lampard's average position in his three starts and each game he averaged being right around midfield which is where he should be. He plays where Xabi Alonso plays and actually more defensively than Pirlo plays. He hasn't played well this season, but so much of the criticism of him is based on a lack of understanding of what his position is supposed to be and what he is responsible for.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

The article at the beginning of this thread was terrible because it makes the same basic mistake in thinking that the double pivot is two defensive midfielders. It just isn't. Many teams play the 4-2-3-1 and the roles are almost always the same. One defensive midfielder, and one deep-lying playmaker. You can't play with two defensive midfielders because there's no bridge from the defence to the attack. Instead of freeing up the attackers to do more, what it actually does is require the attacking players to come further back up the pitch to receive the ball. So you have a team that has static movement and very limited creativity Also, I found the criticisms of Lampard kind of ridiculous. The biggest pproblem at Chelsea is that Lampard makes too many runs and that opens us up too much space? Chelsea have conceded 2 goals in the 3 games Lampard has started and neither of them were remotely caused by Lampard (One, brilliant header Cahill could have done better, one horrible error by Cech)? Why is something that has cost us zero goals this year suddenly the biggest problem with the team? (The criticism of him not being an ideal deep-lying midfielder is legitimate.) Also, the article is wrong about Lampard's positioning. It's not a debate. It's just factually wrong because we actual have Lampard's positioning data available. Look at Lampard's average position in his three starts and each game he averaged being right around midfield which is where he should be. He plays where Xabi Alonso plays and actually more defensively than Pirlo plays. He hasn't played well this season, but so much of the criticism of him is based on a lack of understanding of what his position is supposed to be and what he is responsible for.

The article at the beginning of this thread was terrible because it makes the same basic mistake in thinking that the double pivot is two defensive midfielders. It just isn't. Many teams play the 4-2-3-1 and the roles are almost always the same. One defensive midfielder, and one deep-lying playmaker. You can't play with two defensive midfielders because there's no bridge from the defence to the attack. Instead of freeing up the attackers to do more, what it actually does is require the attacking players to come further back up the pitch to receive the ball. So you have a team that has static movement and very limited creativity Also, I found the criticisms of Lampard kind of ridiculous. The biggest pproblem at Chelsea is that Lampard makes too many runs and that opens us up too much space? Chelsea have conceded 2 goals in the 3 games Lampard has started and neither of them were remotely caused by Lampard (One, brilliant header Cahill could have done better, one horrible error by Cech)? Why is something that has cost us zero goals this year suddenly the biggest problem with the team? (The criticism of him not being an ideal deep-lying midfielder is legitimate.) Also, the article is wrong about Lampard's positioning. It's not a debate. It's just factually wrong because we actual have Lampard's positioning data available. Look at Lampard's average position in his three starts and each game he averaged being right around midfield which is where he should be. He plays where Xabi Alonso plays and actually more defensively than Pirlo plays. He hasn't played well this season, but so much of the criticism of him is based on a lack of understanding of what his position is supposed to be and what he is responsible for.

The main criticism is for roberto dimatteo and not lampard.

Lampard has played as an attacking or central midfield all his life and is not clearly suited for this role. Its like telling ozil to play in defensive midfield when he is not used to it. He will always go foward and leave spaces at the back, which good teams like athletico and juve will exploit.

The only way chelsea can develop a true system is to play lampard in attacking midfield where he belongs or change back to ancelloti's 4-3-3 with lampard and oscar in CM roles.

That is what dimatteo is not doing. He is not trying to find a system to develop our play. The first time he tried it was in the last 10mins against qpr. Before we started bossing them. If qpr holds 55% possesion against us then against mancity what will happen? 80%

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

The main criticism is for roberto dimatteo and not lampard.

Lampard has played as an attacking or central midfield all his life and is not clearly suited for this role. Its like telling ozil to play in defensive midfield when he is not used to it. He will always go foward and leave spaces at the back, which good teams like athletico and juve will exploit.

The only way chelsea can develop a true system is to play lampard in attacking midfield where he belongs or change back to ancelloti's 4-3-3 with lampard and oscar in CM roles.

That is what dimatteo is not doing. He is not trying to find a system to develop our play. The first time he tried it was in the last 10mins against qpr. Before we started bossing them. If qpr holds 55% possesion against us then against mancity what will happen? 80%

I get your point and I think it's a legitimate concern, but I'd like to see our team evolve some before making any big moves. One of the major reasons we didn't have much possession against QPR was playing Ramires are Bertrand. Neither are really possession players. (Also, Torres, couldn't keep possession up front.) I think with Mata back in the starting XI and hopefully moving out left more (the biggest imbalance for me has been the attacking third, it hasn't been sorted out yet and unlike the deep-lying midfield, there are tons of options there), we will be able to keep the ball more. We did have 72% possession against Reading after all. With a lot of new players, RDM has some definite tinkering to do. I'd rather he do it at his own pace than be forced into some ridiculous panicky changes that so many on here seem to want.

[╫rue Blue 47]

The article at the beginning of this thread was terrible because it makes the same basic mistake in thinking that the double pivot is two defensive midfielders. It just isn't. Many teams play the 4-2-3-1 and the roles are almost always the same. One defensive midfielder, and one deep-lying playmaker. You can't play with two defensive midfielders because there's no bridge from the defence to the attack. Instead of freeing up the attackers to do more, what it actually does is require the attacking players to come further back up the pitch to receive the ball. So you have a team that has static movement and very limited creativity

thats right, double pivot cant fiil with two defensive midfield

with two midfield cant distributed the ball and help attacking and too defensive minded

it still will be struggling against good and organise defence, that would be horrible

prime example, just look netherland in euro

their frontline is fill with all attacking minded player, good quality and technicall actually (not like us which still use 'wrong' player to attack)

but what happen, with their bad display from their double pivot

it makes a whole team doesnt work well

their team static, look like separated in their attacking-defence

opponent more easy to closing space and predicted how they try to attacking

and how you can still thinking RDM decision on our double pivot, is still right

the problem is we didnt have mobility and pace in midfield

if the double pivot playing badly which is this area is really vital aspect in 4-2-3-1 formation

it makes a whole team playing bad, even horrible

and makes it much worse with another problem/wrong decision by RDM

Also, I found the criticisms of Lampard kind of ridiculous. The biggest pproblem at Chelsea is that Lampard makes too many runs and that opens us up too much space? Chelsea have conceded 2 goals in the 3 games Lampard has started and neither of them were remotely caused by Lampard (One, brilliant header Cahill could have done better, one horrible error by Cech)? Why is something that has cost us zero goals this year suddenly the biggest problem with the team? (The criticism of him not being an ideal deep-lying midfielder is legitimate.) Also, the article is wrong about Lampard's positioning. It's not a debate. It's just factually wrong because we actual have Lampard's positioning data available. Look at Lampard's average position in his three starts and each game he averaged being right around midfield which is where he should be. He plays where Xabi Alonso plays and actually more defensively than Pirlo plays. He hasn't played well this season, but so much of the criticism of him is based on a lack of understanding of what his position is supposed to be and what he is responsible for.

yes, you right

lampard didnt cost us goal conceded

but, you are not blind isnt, you see it against milan, psg, even against wigan midfield

with lampard and mikel so far in double pivot

against good midfield, when our midfield get pressure

our midfiled very struggling and become non existent

so something wrong in our double pivot, isnt it

not just simlpy because ofform

and that would be madness, if RDM still keep doing that, or not find the way to highly improved

[YouNameIt 1,511]

Mikel - Romeu

Mata - Ramires - Hazard

Torres

Thats a decent way of having a strong defensive team but at the same time be set up for quick counters and a dangerous attacking force. That would be my choice against Juve if Romeu had actually played some games.

[communicate 2,703]

The main criticism is for roberto dimatteo and not lampard.

Lampard has played as an attacking or central midfield all his life and is not clearly suited for this role. Its like telling ozil to play in defensive midfield when he is not used to it. He will always go foward and leave spaces at the back, which good teams like athletico and juve will exploit.

The only way chelsea can develop a true system is to play lampard in attacking midfield where he belongs or change back to ancelloti's 4-3-3 with lampard and oscar in CM roles.

That is what dimatteo is not doing. He is not trying to find a system to develop our play. The first time he tried it was in the last 10mins against qpr. Before we started bossing them. If qpr holds 55% possesion against us then against mancity what will happen? 80%

If you want to really play 433 you should play ramires instead of Oscar. Oscar is a no 10 so he will have tendency to stay forward and play as no 10 and the formation is back to 4231